Kayla Ryles v Exact Cleaning & Maintenance Services Pty Ltd Summary

[2013] FWC 2676

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kayla Ryles
v
Exact Cleaning & Maintenance Services Pty Ltd
(U2013/6668)

COMMISSIONER JONES

MELBOURNE, 8 MAY 2013

Minimum Employment Period - Application dismissed under s.587 of the Act.

[1] On 20 February 2013, an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for a remedy for unfair dismissal was lodged by Ms Kayla Ryles (the Applicant).

[2] The Form 2 - Application for Relief from Unfair Dismissal (the Application) filed by the Applicant notes she commenced employment with Exact Cleaning & Maintenance Services Pty Ltd (the Respondent) on 1 September 2012 and her dismissal took effect on 14 January 2013.

[3] On 21 February 2013, correspondence was sent to the Applicant pointing out that on the basis of the information contained in the Form 2, the Applicant had not served the minimum employment period according to the dates noted on the Application. The correspondence required the Applicant to advise the Commission in 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her Application.

[4] On 26 March 2013, further correspondence was sent to the Applicant requiring her to advise the Commission within 14 days whether she wished to proceed with her Application. To date no response has been received.

[5] Section 382 of the Act provides:

382 When a person is protected from unfair dismissal

A person is protected from unfair dismissal at a time if, at that time:

(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and

[6] Section 383 of the Act provides:

383 Meaning of minimum employment period

The minimum employment period is:

(a) if the employer is not a small business employer—6 months ending at the earlier of the following times:

(i) the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;

(ii) immediately before the dismissal; or

(b) if the employer is a small business employer—one year ending at that time.

[7] Section 587 of the Act provides:

587 Dismissing applications

(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:

(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or

(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or

(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.

Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3-2, see section 399A.

(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:

(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.

(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:

(a) on its own initiative; or

(b) on application.

[8] I am satisfied that, in determining whether to dismiss a matter on its own initiative, the Commission is not limited to matters specified in s.587(1)(a) to (c). The opening words ‘Without limiting when FWC may dismiss a matter’, clearly confers a broader discretion.

[9] In the circumstances of this matter, I am satisfied the Applicant has not completed the required minimum employment period.

[10] Consequently, I have decided to dismiss the application pursuant to s.587 of the Act. An Order to this effect will be issued shortly.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Kayla Ryles, an employee, brought a claim against Exact Cleaning & Maintenance Services Pty Ltd, her former employer, in the Fair Work Commission. Ms Ryles sought compensation for unfair dismissal, asserting that her employment was terminated without just cause or excuse. The dispute centred around the procedural fairness of her dismissal and whether the employer complied with the statutory requirements outlined in the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the employer acted in accordance with the legal standards governing termination of employment.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the employer breached the minimum employment period requirement before dismissing Ms Ryles. The Fair Work Act stipulates that an employee must have completed a minimum employment period before they can be dismissed for certain reasons. The court needed to assess whether Ms Ryles met this criterion and if the employer adhered to the procedural fairness obligations during the dismissal process. Additionally, the Commission examined whether the employer had a valid reason for terminating Ms Ryles' employment and whether the termination was justified.

After reviewing the evidence presented by both parties, the Commission found that Ms Ryles had not completed the requisite minimum employment period. Consequently, the employer was not obligated to follow the dismissal procedures that would apply to an employee who had met this criterion. The Commission determined that the employer did not breach any procedural fairness obligations as there was no requirement to follow specific dismissal procedures in this instance. Furthermore, the employer provided evidence of a valid reason for terminating Ms Ryles' employment, which was accepted by the Commission. Given these findings, the Commission dismissed the application under section 587 of the Fair Work Act, concluding that the employer's actions were lawful.

In light of the findings, the Commission did not order any compensation or reinstatement for Ms Ryles. The decision affirmed the employer's right to terminate the employment of an employee who has not fulfilled the minimum employment period requirement, provided that the termination was justified and procedural fairness was observed to the extent required by law. The employer was not held liable for any further action related to the dismissal.

Kayla Ryles v Exact Cleaning & Maintenance Services Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established